Men spend more time online, respond better to ads

Men may be in the (slight) minority online, but they are ripe for targeted …

Men go online more often, stay on for longer, and respond to ads more positively than women do, according to a new report from eMarketer. The firm looked at the Internet habits of men versus women, partially because men are (technically) in the minority online and also because gender "is a distinguishing factor of Internet use, informing online behavior and attitudes."

There are 95.9 million men online in 2009, according to eMarketer's estimation. When compared against the 103.2 million women, that puts men at 48.2 percent of the overall Internet population (those who access the Internet at least once a month from any location). The firm says that the US Internet population will grow steadily, but by 2013, men will only make up 47.9 percent of the group.

But just because they're in the (slight) minority doesn't mean they're not valuable as marketing victims targets. According to eMarketer's data, not only do men spend more time online than women, they are also more active on social networking sites, reading/writing blogs, and listening to podcasts.

Men are supposedly not as bothered by "websites cluttered with ads" as women are, either. eMarketer claims that 56 percent of women in a study of 4,095 Internet users had negative reactions towards advertisers on sites that contain advertisements, compared with 48.3 percent of men. "Still, any negative reaction should be avoided—it is not what advertisers are paying for," cautions the report. (Tip: try to make it so that research firms don't describe your site as "cluttered" with ads.)

Additionally, the firm says that marketers who target men should diversify from the fart jokes and Maxim spreads aimed heavily at the 18-34 age group. The US male Internet population is evenly split between those under and over the age of 35, with the largest group falling between 35 and 44. "Marketers may be overlooking a valuable demographic if they target only 18-to-34-year-old males. Advertising messages steeped in college humor and sex do not resonate with the millions of male Internet users who are researching products and services—and jobs—while shopping and connecting with friends and family," writes eMarketer. "Ads that respect their roles as fathers, partners and friends will get the attention of men and women."

I don't really mind non-intrusive ads (read: does not make noise or interfere with reading the site). That said, I will never click on an ad no matter how interesting the topic. Ads are by definition marketing garbage and are ignored.

I don't recall ever clicking on a graphical ad. Flash is disabled which I find gets rid of most of the egregious adverts. Now, a text ad on Google I might click if its relevant. However I decided long ago that if you're going to annoy me by taking up a huge portion of my screen, you're not getting any money from me.

I don't understand why Web Designers can't figure out how to place an ad unobtrusively. This site gets it (I can actually read the content without the ad in the way) - why can't others?

originally posted by petard:Anyone who abides by the agreement you consented to when you signed up to post in the forums on this very web site allows ads in their browser.

Just out of curiosity, I skimmed the agreement and came up with this:

quote:

from the linked Ars User Agreement:IV.1.IThe Website also contains other graphics, text, photographs, images, video, audio, software, code, and other material that is provided by Service Provider or its licensors and is not clearly identified as, or intended, for your use, including without limitation the organization, design, compilation, and "look and feel" of the Website, and advertising thereon ("Website Content"). The Website Content is protected by state, national and international copyright, trademark and other intellectual property laws, and is the property of Service Provider or its licensors. The copying, reproduction, publication, display, rearrangement, redistribution, modification, revision, alteration, cropping, re-sizing, reverse engineering, movement, removal, deletion, or other use or change by you, directly or indirectly, of any such Website Content, including but not limited to the removal or alteration of advertising, is strictly prohibited.

Hey, look at that! If you change the size of your browser window while you're viewing the site, you're in violation of the agreement. Also, I guess it isn't kosher to re-post the agreement for discussion, technically speaking.

Incidentally petard, how many hours out of each day would you say you spend reading EULAs and/or making sure you don't violate them?

You can block the majority of ads using a specially designed hosts file (here, here or here) - these are generally much more reliable than an ad/popup blocker, and are OS wide rather than bound to a browser.

I always used to put up with online ads, but - maybe I'm just getting old - recently I've found myself becoming much more riled by the amount of garbage marketing agencies are planting in my subconscious mindspace. Surfing without ads is a much more peaceful experience.

Originally posted by gaosuGonglu:Hey, look at that! If you change the size of your browser window while you're viewing the site, you're in violation of the agreement. Also, I guess it isn't kosher to re-post the agreement for discussion, technically speaking.

All of which shouldn't be relevant since you already made a copy of the webpage when it transmitted digitally to your machine. However, broken legalese aside, I think you'd want to allow Ads on Ars as you like Ars.

quote:

I would hope that people who enjoy reading Ars Technica do not block ads here. Its how we keep the lights on ;(

I don't block the ads on Ars or other sites a frequently visit but I do adopt a Default Deny policy. ie, I have a blacklist by default and then I add exceptions to add sites I like.

Advertising messages steeped in college humor and sex do not resonate with the millions of male Internet users who are researching products and services—and jobs—while shopping and connecting with friends and family

I can live without the 'college humor' myself, but the rest of that sentence is so heavily-qualified as to render itself pointless. Sex most definitely resonates with millions of male Internet users who are not researching products and services - and jobs - while shopping and connecting with friends and family. Remove those multitudes of conditionals and suddenly advertising with a sexual component falls right back to the level of effectiveness that has been sustaining it for centuries.

originally posted by jus10:However, broken legalese aside, I think you'd want to allow Ads on Ars as you like Ars.

Actually, I don't block ads anywhere. Not for any particularly noble reason though-- simply because ads don't bother me enough to make me want to install something to conceal them. I never buy anything and rarely even notice them unless they move/blink a great deal. Really, I just hate it when someone whips out a EULA as if anyone cares. If there is a community anywhere on the internet that's in a position to understand this, I'd think it would be Ars.

Not being a website admin, I have to admit I don't really understand how the ad-driven model makes money. I'm vaguely aware that sites get money for presenting ads. Do blockers somehow prevent the ad server from serving the ad, or do they simply prevent the ad from rendering in my browser?

More simply, assuming I will never buy anything from an ad, do I cause the site to lose revenue by using software to block ads? And if so, by what mechanism?

Also, while I was being facetious about the window resizing thing earlier, I do have to admit that I frequently resize the browser to clip particularly colorful ads while surfing at work. Does anyone think that is unethical? (Resizing the window, not surfing at work )

Originally posted by gaosuGonglu:...snippy noise about specific words of agreement omitted...Incidentally petard, how many hours out of each day would you say you spend reading EULAs and/or making sure you don't violate them?

None at all. As far as I can tell, the terms here basically boil down to "don't be a jerk." I didn't make a reference to the agreement for the joy of picking apart legalese, but, rather, because it's really a very tired discussion around here. Besides, isn't it kind of a dick move to act like you're a member of a community, say, by participating in the forums, while actively making it harder for your hosts to pay their bills?

originally posted by petard:Besides, isn't it kind of a dick move to act like you're a member of a community, say, by participating in the forums, while actively making it harder for your hosts to pay their bills?

"Snippy noise"... you poor dear, was I too snippy? If you don't want to get picked on for holding up a EULA like a cross, don't do it.

From the shear volume of posts your link returns, I suspect that "Don't be a jerk" may be a little more nuanced than you think. Also, as I said just one post above your most recent contribution, I don't block ads. Do you resize the window?

Originally posted by gaosuGonglu:"Snippy noise"... you poor dear, was I too snippy? If you don't want to get picked on for holding up a EULA like a cross, don't do it.

Don't worry, Darling! I like it when you're feisty. I trimmed your snippy noise because it was just a verbose, uninteresting strawman (or "noise") not because it was snippy

And it's not a EULA, it's TACOS . They're two very different things.

quote:

From the shear volume of posts your link returns, I suspect that "Don't be a jerk" may be a little more nuanced than you think.

What? Details may be more nuanced than a 4-word summary? Why, I'd never considered that...

Did you read any of the posts in that search? They were all instances where the site owner clearly and succinctly gave his position on blocking ars' ads. If a behavior has clearly and repeatedly been identified as offensive to the people who host you here, is it not obviously "being a jerk" to continue it?

quote:

Also, as I said just one post above your most recent contribution, I don't block ads.

Great. Congrats. I certainly didn't mean to suggest that you block ads! Let's recap... I replied to a poster who said, in effect, "Doesn't everyone block ads anyway?" The point of that reply was to point out that most people here don't. You seem to (deliberately?) ignore that point and nitpick the wording of the TACOS instead. Yawn.

Why do more sites not have one of those deals that says "Please disable your ad blocker, as our site is run off of the revenue from our ads." in place of the blocked ads? I remember the first time I had adblock on and got one of those on linux.org or something, and I haven't really used adblock since then.

Why doesn't Ars just block ad-blocked access? It can't be so difficult. Would it make people that mad?

Edit: I just clicked on that IBM ad and checked out some thinkpads, but they're too expensive. Does Asus do ads? Get some of those!

originally posted by petard:Great. Congrats. I certainly didn't mean to suggest that you block ads! Let's recap... I replied to a poster who said, in effect, "Doesn't everyone block ads anyway?" The point of that reply was to point out that most people here don't. You seem to (deliberately?) ignore that point and nitpick the wording of the TACOS instead. Yawn.

You responded to a poster who claimed to block ads with a vaguely threatening remark and a link to the User Agreement. Since you didn't specify a section, I'll infer that any pretense that you actually wanted to educate the person about the site's policies is false. I being genuinely interested in the text of that agreement, found the pertinent details, reposted them, remarked upon some verbiage I found questionable/humorous, and ribbed you about being a EULATACOS monger. You moved the goalposts by claiming that the details of the agreement that you linked weren't the focus of the discussion and that people in general shouldn't be jerks (I agree, incidentally). You then proceeded to score some cheap internet points off me with the EULA vs TACOS("Terms And Conditions Of Service") thing and make a series of sarcastic remarks in which you imply that something I've said is in some was fallacious.

As you seem to be passingly aware of the Straw Man fallacy, you should really go back and read the thread. You might notice that I never once defended either ad-blocking or the practice of being a jerk. You're preaching to the choir for the most part.

Your first post could have consisted of the informative very tired discussion link you posted later. Alternatively, you could have said, "That's a shitty thing to do if you like the site." Instead of doing either of those things, you made some remark about the TACOS. Yawn indeed.

Sounds like Ars needs a new business model. After all, technology has progressed to the point where we can safely ignore their ads, why should we handicap ourselves because Ars hasn't figured out a better model?

Originally posted by petard:Besides, isn't it kind of a dick move to act like you're a member of a community, say, by participating in the forums, while actively making it harder for your hosts to pay their bills?

Like you said later on, this has been discussed to death, but in most cases I would rather pay a subscription (like I do at IGN) or pay for a product (like I do at Futuremark) than have 30% of my screen space, not to mention CPU cycles gobbled up with ads. As it happens, Ars is not that intrusive and 99% of my visits here are done from the office, where I run IE6 (yes... don't ask). I think you've made a good point, but you shouldn't make assumptions about my attitude towards entitlement as you'd likely be wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Clintology:I would hope that people who enjoy reading Ars Technica do not block ads here. Its how we keep the lights on ;

Seriously, I would pay a subsription for your site, it's the first tech site I look at each day. My default browser on my Mac at home does block ads, although I make exceptions on the BBC and some other non-profit sites that have small unintrusive ads. I will, I promise, do the same for Ars...

Just as a way of showing how seriously I take this, I do not watch any TV (I have no cable or free-to-air connection). I watch all of my content via iTunes or Netflix or by getting DVDs from the library, and yes it's 100% legitimate, not torrents or ripping here. The only reason for this, is to avoid ads. I find them largely offensive for reasons that would require a new thread to discuss.

...PS sorry to be so righteous about this, I felt a tinge of guilt for my post!